Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Nov 15: There had been blunders galore on the part of the Morbi municipality, a state government body, in awarding contracts for the maintenance of the suspension foot-bridge in Morbi in Gujarat which collapsed on October 30 evening killing 135 people and injuring scores of others.
During the hearing of a case concerning the collapse of the bridge taken up suo motu by the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday, it was revealed that there was no contract existed for a period of over five years since June, 2017 for the maintenance of the bridge and yet the defaulting company, Ajanta Manufacturing limited, the flagship company of the Oreva group which actually is known for manufacturing world-class wall clocks under the “Ajanta” brand name, was maintaining and earning from tickets on the bridge during the period and the civic body never bothered to interfere.
The High Court also took the civic body to task for “acting smart” and failing to send its representative to appear before the court and directed the state government to “secure” all files related to the contracts and agreements with respect to the bridge and also instructed the government to file the same with the registry in a sealed cover by November 17. It also sought to know from the state what disciplinary actions/proceedings have been taken, if any, against the suspended Morbi municipality chief officer Sandipsinh Zala, or any other officer of the municipality.
Taking the Morbi municipality to task for ”serious lapses” in awarding the contract for repair work of the suspension bridge, the bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice A J Shastri slammed the Morbi civic body for “acting smart” and sought direct answers from it over the manner in which the contract was awarded for maintenance of the 150-year-old bridge that collapsed on October 30.
“The municipality, a government body, has defaulted, which ultimately killed 135 people,” the court said as a preliminary observation. As the municipality was not represented by any officials today despite a notice, the bench remarked, “They are acting smart.”
The High Court registry informed the court that a notice was served by Gujarat High Court but the same remains to be received back. The division bench directed the principal district judge of Morbi to depute a special bailiff to serve notice by 4.30 pm on Tuesday.
The High Court observed that “prima facie, the municipality has defaulted which led to (the) unfortunate incident”, and questioned how the “largesse of the state” was granted to a company without floating a tender.
The court further inquired from the state government how Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd, the flagship company of Oreva Group, was permitted to maintain the bridge between 2017 and 2022 in the absence of any agreement after the term of a 2008 agreement on bridge maintenance and repair had expired.
The court noted that an MoU was executed on June 16, 2008, between the Rajkot collector and M/s Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd to operate, maintain, manage, and collect rent in respect of the suspension bridge and the nine-year period expired on June 15, 2017.
Under the said MoU, who had been fixed the responsibility to certify that the bridge is ready and fit for usage, is not forthcoming,” the court said. “The largesse of the state seems to have been granted without there being any tender floated in this regard,” it added.
The court said after the MoU’s term ended on June 15, 2017, the affidavit does not reveal what steps were taken by the collector and Morbi municipality to either call for an expression of interest (EOI) or float a tender. “In fact, we notice that…from 15.6.2017, for a period of two years, without there being any MoU or agreement or entrustment, the subject bridge has continued to be maintained and managed by Ajanta even in the absence of there being any agreement,” the court said.
“Intriguingly, the said Ajanta, informed the collector Morbi on various dates, commencing from 14.2.2020, 3.06.2020, 17.7.2020, till 27.8.2020, that until and unless an agreement is executed, they will not commence the repairing work of the suspension bridge. Yet the said Ajanta continued to operate, maintain and receive the revenue from the visitors to the bridge,” the court further said.
The high court also directed the civic officials to apprise if there were any conditions for certifying fitness of the bridge before its reopening and who took the decision.
“The state shall also place on record reasons why disciplinary proceedings against chief officer of the civic body aren’t commenced,” it said. The High Court prima facie held that the municipality defaulted to comply with the law and sought details of action taken. The high court ordered the state government to provide jobs to the next of kin of the deceased persons.
The police had earlier arrested nine employees of the Oreva Group in this connection. Morbi court had sent four accused of bridge collapse to police custody till November 5 and another five people to judicial custody. Out of the four persons in police custody, two were manager level officers of the Oreva Group and the other two were mere fabrication work contractors. Currently all the nine are in judicial custody.
Seeking an additional affidavit from the state government on the details the court has inquired about, the court kept the matter for next hearing on November 24.